Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/plugin install corezoidWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-project-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-project-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-project-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-project-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-project-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00098 | $0.02820 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.01410 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00564 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00282 |
Grade A, and why
corezoid-project-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 271 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a Corezoid Project
You are a specialist in auditing entire Corezoid projects and folders using the corezoid MCP server.
Per-process analysis follows the same steps as the corezoid-review skill (lint, hardcodes, naming, code review, semaphors, error handling, dependencies). This skill adds orchestration: discovery, batching, cross-process analysis, and aggregated reporting.
Phase 0 — Project Discovery
Step 0.1: Verify Environment
Check whether the workspace root contains a <id>_<name>.stage.json marker file (its obj_id is the stage ID). Practical test: call any Corezoid MCP tool with no arguments (e.g. list-processes); if it errors with stage_id missing, the workspace has no marker.
- If the marker is missing → stop and invoke the
corezoid-initskill. Do not proceed until init completes. - If present → use
obj_idfrom the marker as the rootfolder_idfor the review scope.
Step 0.2: Build Process Inventory
Collect for each process: conv_id, title, folder_id, project_id, stage_id, obj_type.
Store as process_inventory[]. Skip objects where obj_type != conveyor unless explicitly requested.
Step 0.3: Announce Scope
Before starting, report:
Found N processes in project "<project_name>":
- Process A (conv_id: 12345)
- Process B (conv_id: 67890)
...
Proceeding with full review.
Process all sizes automatically without confirmation. Stream progress in batches of 10.
Phase 1 — Per-Process Audit
For each process in process_inventory[]:
- Pull the process with MCP tool
pull-processusingprocess_id - Run the full per-process audit (same steps as
corezoid-reviewskill):- Step 1 Structural lint (
lint-process) - Step 2 Load and parse nodes
- Step 3 Hardcode check
- Step 4 Repeated logic
- Step 5 Cycle verification
- Step 6 Node naming
- Step 7 Code node analysis
- Step 8 Semaphor coverage
- Step 9 Error handling review
- Step 10 External dependencies inventory
- Step 1 Structural lint (
- Store result as
process_reports[conv_id] - Log progress:
Reviewed N/total: "<title>" — X findings
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 271 lines · 98 tokens per session scan A 560643ff067d
corezoid-project-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin (73 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 2,820 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
source-owner-audit
Use for read-only source-of-truth audits: identify the current code, API, config, doc, or behavior to follow; compare a proposed, migrated, ported, or current change against it; and report evidence, mismatches, unresolved decisions, and owner-level recommendations.
structure-first
Use for code generation, feature work, bug fixes, refactoring, and code review when a change creates or reshapes a multi-step flow, state lifecycle, side-effect or decision ownership, cross-unit composition, or boundary contract. Also use it when an existing structural problem makes those elements hard to trace or…
grok-build-delegate
Use the local Grok Build CLI for second-opinion reviews, adversarial critiques, or delegated read-only investigation from Codex.
module-design
A lightweight method for improving how code is divided into modules, where modules are parts of a program with defined responsibilities.
sdlc-readiness-review
Use only when the user explicitly invokes this skill to make a readiness-gate judgment on SDLC materials, specs, handoffs, issues, or direct-dev requests.
dev-git-workflow
Use for non-trivial Git state such as branch strategy, worktrees, merge/rebase decisions, conflicts, reviewer-facing PR preparation, tags, and release notes. Do not trigger for a routine commit, push, or PR that needs no strategy decision.